Options for namespaces for DITA.
I think we have the following practical options for using namespaces
with DITA 1.0:
1. Have exactly one namespace for all element types, including local
specializations.
2. Have exactly two namespaces, one for maps, one for all other element
types, including local specializations.
3. Have many namespaces: one for maps, one each for topic, task,
reference, concept, different domains, locally-specialized elements, etc.
4. Have two namespaces for DITA-defined types (including domains). Local
specializations are in their own namespaces.
Of these options, I think that (1) will not work, for the simple reason
that maps and topics use the same element type names with different
content models. Thus maps and topics are fundamentally different
document types and therefore represent different namespaces.
I think that (3) is just nuts, but that's mostly because I don't yet
understand the implications of having that many namespaces, especially
for schema definition and modularization.
Option (4) is probably the right answer for the long term for the simple
reason that local specializations are clearly in their own space and
should, at least intuitively, be in a distinct namespace. What we don't
yet understand is exactly how XSD-based declarations would work in this
case.
My intent is to do some experiments to test options 2 and 4 and see if I
can determine anything definitive.
Cheers,
Eliot
--
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
9390 Research Blvd, #410
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 372-8122
www.innodata-isogen.com
